Hi Simgrund,
I don't know that it means very much for us, but it's got to be better for the PIF that the Fortress appeal was dismissed than if it had been upheld! At least there shouldn't be any legal costs to pay this time!
Cookie1
Wellington Capital PIF/Octaviar (MFS) PIF
- Thread starter breaker1
- Start date
Hi Simgrund,
I don't know that it means very much for us, but it's got to be better for the PIF that the Fortress appeal was dismissed than if it had been upheld! At least there shouldn't be any legal costs to pay this time!
Cookie1
No, I am not the leader, never have been and have no desire to be the leader. I am just an outspoken PIF investor, unlike yourself, who is struggling to hold those accountable for my current situation. I continue to research all aspects of those that are or have been in control of my investment and consistently contribute to any findings relevant to the information I find.
Tax implications, which have been mentioned before, will be adressed individually when investors are actually informed as to how any return of capital or distribution is paid. This is not an issue at the present time.
PIF investors are just as concerned as many others in the same situation as other Funds and continue to fight for a better alternative.
PIF investors that follow this thread do so because
A. they know that their support as individual unit holders is recognised and valued for ongoing committment to back up PIF AG Reps to represent their best interests.
B. PIF investors also know that PIF AG reps are actually no different than themselves and are committed to finding and resolving better outcomes that will benefit all PIF investors.
On behalf of all PIF investors that I have encouraged to not make any complaints regarding individual posters because we do not wish to draw attention to this thread, thanks. I am sure the moderators will take on board and respect all efforts made to divert **** stirrers who have had ample opportunity to refrain from upsetting the thread and respecting posters wishes.
Seamisty
Tax implications, which have been mentioned before, will be adressed individually when investors are actually informed as to how any return of capital or distribution is paid. This is not an issue at the present time.
PIF investors are just as concerned as many others in the same situation as other Funds and continue to fight for a better alternative.
PIF investors that follow this thread do so because
A. they know that their support as individual unit holders is recognised and valued for ongoing committment to back up PIF AG Reps to represent their best interests.
B. PIF investors also know that PIF AG reps are actually no different than themselves and are committed to finding and resolving better outcomes that will benefit all PIF investors.
On behalf of all PIF investors that I have encouraged to not make any complaints regarding individual posters because we do not wish to draw attention to this thread, thanks. I am sure the moderators will take on board and respect all efforts made to divert **** stirrers who have had ample opportunity to refrain from upsetting the thread and respecting posters wishes.
Seamisty
- Joined
- 12 July 2008
- Posts
- 416
- Reactions
- 0
Yes, Cookie1, you are right re costs.
Fortress's interests were to the tune of some $250 mil. as I dimly recall.
Perhaps Marcom could research ( a request only), if this release from obligation puts Octaviar in better position regarding anticipated realisation of assets left in the kitty.
And by implication, better prospects for PIF's $50m or part thereof?
Regards,
- Joined
- 12 July 2008
- Posts
- 416
- Reactions
- 0
Hi seamisty,
You revived the memories of Great Dame; a truly historical name that had us all in hysterical stitches for so long.
No interloper, however malodorous, could ever scale those heights.
Let us retain our high standards and give our blessings to those sacred memories.
Cheers, simgrund
P.S. I hope GD made it to IMF register.
I am still convinced that the Carney's Class action could fail, as why would they send out a letter giving us all the chance to pull out.
Unless another letter is sent out by Carney's, informing that all is OK with the Class Action, then all I can assume is that it will fail, like all the other court cases that have involved our fund.
You can say all you like here on the forum, that all is OK, but it is not coming from the horses mouth.
Unless another letter is sent out by Carney's, informing that all is OK with the Class Action, then all I can assume is that it will fail, like all the other court cases that have involved our fund.
You can say all you like here on the forum, that all is OK, but it is not coming from the horses mouth.
- Joined
- 22 May 2008
- Posts
- 758
- Reactions
- 0
Some people don't concede gracefully. Don't take the bait they throw out to score points.
The 9 March 2010 decision merely means there may be more money to divide between all the unsecured creditors.
Remember that an additional $38.5m was added to Fortress' security over OCV Ltd on 22 January 2008.
This Fortress Appeal wasn't to reverse the decision on 31 July 2009 to cancel the DOCA or even the decision to sack Deloitte.
This Appeal was merely an argument about the date that administration began. PTQ said it was 4 June 2008. Fortress wanted it to be 9 September 2008. Why is this important?
My lay understanding is because any transaction in the 6 months before Adminstration began can be voided. So if Fortress won the appeal then the 22Jan08 transaction couldn't have been voided (under those provisions at least).
I recall from my previous calculations that Fortress may even have to pay $ back if the 22Jan08 transaction is voided.
Or something like that.
Now we need that 22Jan08 transaction voided.
The 9 March 2010 decision merely means there may be more money to divide between all the unsecured creditors.
Remember that an additional $38.5m was added to Fortress' security over OCV Ltd on 22 January 2008.
This Fortress Appeal wasn't to reverse the decision on 31 July 2009 to cancel the DOCA or even the decision to sack Deloitte.
This Appeal was merely an argument about the date that administration began. PTQ said it was 4 June 2008. Fortress wanted it to be 9 September 2008. Why is this important?
My lay understanding is because any transaction in the 6 months before Adminstration began can be voided. So if Fortress won the appeal then the 22Jan08 transaction couldn't have been voided (under those provisions at least).
I recall from my previous calculations that Fortress may even have to pay $ back if the 22Jan08 transaction is voided.
Or something like that.
Now we need that 22Jan08 transaction voided.
- Joined
- 22 May 2008
- Posts
- 758
- Reactions
- 0
Perhaps because of the spotlight put on funded class actions by the Federal Court in Brookfield Multiplex Ltd v International Litigation Funding Partners Pte Ltd [2009] FCAFC 147.
See http://www.watchdog.asic.gov.au/ASI... for funded class actions?OpenDocument&Click=
I asked myself the same question lawry1dog (Why send that letter?) but decided to stay in the CA. Perhaps Carneys is just being diligent and honest. Behaviour I'm not used to anymore.
If you're right and I'm wrong. Then I'll have to pay and you won't.
Re: Octaviar MFS Premium Income Fund PIF
10 days late, but the equivelant of 36.2 cents paid into my account today. APN say that the sale represents 80.2% of assets, and the balance will be realised over the next 12 months.
At 80.2% that means I should receive a further 8.9 cents a share or a total of 45.1 cents. This makes a loss since purchase of 86.9 cents or 65.8%!!!
............. something I am not very happy about,.:bad: but would be (reasonably) pleased at this stage, if PIF could produce the same.
10 days late, but the equivelant of 36.2 cents paid into my account today. APN say that the sale represents 80.2% of assets, and the balance will be realised over the next 12 months.
At 80.2% that means I should receive a further 8.9 cents a share or a total of 45.1 cents. This makes a loss since purchase of 86.9 cents or 65.8%!!!
............. something I am not very happy about,.:bad: but would be (reasonably) pleased at this stage, if PIF could produce the same.
- Joined
- 12 July 2008
- Posts
- 416
- Reactions
- 0
An interesting case to follow up.
As reported by Danny John: SMH Business 9/3/10. Can't get the link.
"Super investor sues S&P over credit ratings"
"The credibility of the ratings agency Standard and Poor has come under legal attack in a $40 million action by a local government superannuation investor over a triple-A rated debt investment that subsequently turned toxic in the global financial crisis. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"
Could be a trail blazer. The time to say "Sorry" may have arrived.
Regards, Well done to John H, under the circumstances.
As reported by Danny John: SMH Business 9/3/10. Can't get the link.
"Super investor sues S&P over credit ratings"
"The credibility of the ratings agency Standard and Poor has come under legal attack in a $40 million action by a local government superannuation investor over a triple-A rated debt investment that subsequently turned toxic in the global financial crisis. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"
Could be a trail blazer. The time to say "Sorry" may have arrived.
Regards, Well done to John H, under the circumstances.
Audit firms can't verify findings - ASIC
ONE in five audits conducted by the nation's major accounting firms delivers an opinion that the auditor cannot verify, according to a review by the corporate regulator that calls for broad improvements in practices.
An inspection of auditors by the Australian Securities & Investments Commission has detailed systemic problems within the sector, including a widespread failure of auditors to perform "mandatory" procedures, The Australian reports.
link to full article below. Seamisty
http://www.news.com.au/business/audit-firms-cant-verify-findings-asic/story-e6frfm1i-1225839868481
ONE in five audits conducted by the nation's major accounting firms delivers an opinion that the auditor cannot verify, according to a review by the corporate regulator that calls for broad improvements in practices.
An inspection of auditors by the Australian Securities & Investments Commission has detailed systemic problems within the sector, including a widespread failure of auditors to perform "mandatory" procedures, The Australian reports.
link to full article below. Seamisty
http://www.news.com.au/business/audit-firms-cant-verify-findings-asic/story-e6frfm1i-1225839868481
- Joined
- 12 July 2008
- Posts
- 416
- Reactions
- 0
Thanks ASIC; this is a tremendous support for CA v KPMG!!!
- Joined
- 6 June 2008
- Posts
- 427
- Reactions
- 0
QUOTE: simgrund Perhaps Marcom could research ( a request only), if this release from obligation puts Octaviar in better position regarding anticipated realisation of assets left in the kitty.
I have only had a cursory look at the judgement. Basically it confirms McMurdo's order in the previous case that the commencement date for considering insolvent transactions etc is the date of the PTQ's application for Octaviar to be wound up ie 4 June 2009 and not a later date if Octaviar had been wound up voluntarily by Octaviar ie 9 September 2009. Obviously timing is critical for the creditors including Wellington as it will determine which transactions are caught in the net.
This appeal decision helps strengthen the Liquidator's position on the commencement date for investigating Octaviar transactions. However the relation back date could be rendered irrelevant if the ASIC case finds that the RBS loan scandal is sufficient evidence of insolvency as early as 22 November 2007. This is why the ASIC case is so important. I don't know why ASIC has consented to adjourn the case and what happens next!
I have only had a cursory look at the judgement. Basically it confirms McMurdo's order in the previous case that the commencement date for considering insolvent transactions etc is the date of the PTQ's application for Octaviar to be wound up ie 4 June 2009 and not a later date if Octaviar had been wound up voluntarily by Octaviar ie 9 September 2009. Obviously timing is critical for the creditors including Wellington as it will determine which transactions are caught in the net.
This appeal decision helps strengthen the Liquidator's position on the commencement date for investigating Octaviar transactions. However the relation back date could be rendered irrelevant if the ASIC case finds that the RBS loan scandal is sufficient evidence of insolvency as early as 22 November 2007. This is why the ASIC case is so important. I don't know why ASIC has consented to adjourn the case and what happens next!
- Joined
- 6 June 2008
- Posts
- 427
- Reactions
- 0
The Public Trustee of Queensland will continue to fight the overturning of Mc Murdo's decision re Fortress. This info was posted on the Malleson Stephens Jaques Lawyers website http://www.mallesons.com/publications/2009/Oct/10112207W.htm
Octaviar, round 3 - the saga continues. What should we do now? - 19 October 2009
As we reported on 16 October, in the ongoing Octaviar matter an application was lodged with the High Court on Thursday 15 October 2009 for special leave to appeal against the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal, which had overturned the unsettling first instance judgement.
The relief felt by the market at the Court of Appeal decision has been dented. While that decision was unanimous and, in our respectful view, correct, the market now has to live with an element of uncertainty which could conceivably run through much of 2010. In the normal course, the application is unlikely to be heard until the first quarter of next year. It is difficult to predict whether the High Court will grant the application and take up the appeal. If it does grant the application, the hearing of the appeal proper and the Court’s decision may take months.
Thus, parties need to settle their position on the issues now. In this Alert we discuss the implications and suggest ways forward pending the High Court decision. As with some of our previous communications on this matter, this Alert has been prepared jointly by us and Allens Arthur Robinson in consultation with John Sheahan SC.
The application for special leave to appeal
On 15 October 2009 the Public Trustee of Queensland lodged an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court from the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in Public Trustee of Qld v Octaviar Ltd [2009] QCA 282. You will recall from our previous Alerts that, in a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of McMurdo J at first instance in Re Octaviar Ltd; Re Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 37 (see our Alert of 21 September 2009).
The grounds of the application for special leave focus on the deed of 22 January 2008 by which the parties had brought additional obligations within the scope of an existing “Transaction Document” style charge by designating a new document to be secured. The grounds go to the very heart of the issues that caused such disruption following the first instance decision:
* did the deed of 22 January 2008 constitute a variation to the terms of the charge having the effect of increasing the liabilities secured by that charge, within the meaning of s268(2) of the Corporations Act?
* alternatively, did that deed constitute a new charge?
What does this mean for market practice?
In our Alert issued shortly after the Court of Appeal decision, we offered some interim recommendations pending news of any appeal. The lodging of the special leave application means that the key issues which arose out of the first instance decision remain “in play”. Although the Court of Appeal decision represents the current state of the law and in our respectful view, is correct and likely to be upheld, we cannot dismiss the possibility that the High Court might adopt some or all of McMurdo J's reasoning in the first instance decision, or even adopt a new course. So long as an appeal is pending, the law cannot be regarded as finally settled.
While the Court of Appeal decision did not quash or reverse every element of the reasoning at first instance, it at least meant that the position regarding transactions within the facts of the Octaviar case was restored to what the market understood it to be before the first instance decision. In other words, where a charge describes the secured liabilities, anything which has the effect of adding a liability which falls within that description (and does not alter that description or the remainder of the charge document) is not a registrable variation. If the charge provides a pre-agreed contractual mechanism for bringing liabilities within that description, an act (including an agreement) which is effected strictly in accordance with that mechanism and does not alter the terms of the charge document, will not constitute a registrable variation, even if it has the effect of increasing the amount secured. For example, on our current analysis of the Court of Appeal's decision, if a charge secures all amounts owed under a specified facility agreement, and the charge includes the usual interpretation clause which provides that references to a document includes that document as amended, it is strongly arguable that an amendment to the facility agreement to increase the facility limit should not be a registrable variation of the charge. Of course, that view must be subject to anything the High Court may have to say.
Octaviar, round 3 - the saga continues. What should we do now? - 19 October 2009
As we reported on 16 October, in the ongoing Octaviar matter an application was lodged with the High Court on Thursday 15 October 2009 for special leave to appeal against the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal, which had overturned the unsettling first instance judgement.
The relief felt by the market at the Court of Appeal decision has been dented. While that decision was unanimous and, in our respectful view, correct, the market now has to live with an element of uncertainty which could conceivably run through much of 2010. In the normal course, the application is unlikely to be heard until the first quarter of next year. It is difficult to predict whether the High Court will grant the application and take up the appeal. If it does grant the application, the hearing of the appeal proper and the Court’s decision may take months.
Thus, parties need to settle their position on the issues now. In this Alert we discuss the implications and suggest ways forward pending the High Court decision. As with some of our previous communications on this matter, this Alert has been prepared jointly by us and Allens Arthur Robinson in consultation with John Sheahan SC.
The application for special leave to appeal
On 15 October 2009 the Public Trustee of Queensland lodged an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court from the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in Public Trustee of Qld v Octaviar Ltd [2009] QCA 282. You will recall from our previous Alerts that, in a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of McMurdo J at first instance in Re Octaviar Ltd; Re Octaviar Administration Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 37 (see our Alert of 21 September 2009).
The grounds of the application for special leave focus on the deed of 22 January 2008 by which the parties had brought additional obligations within the scope of an existing “Transaction Document” style charge by designating a new document to be secured. The grounds go to the very heart of the issues that caused such disruption following the first instance decision:
* did the deed of 22 January 2008 constitute a variation to the terms of the charge having the effect of increasing the liabilities secured by that charge, within the meaning of s268(2) of the Corporations Act?
* alternatively, did that deed constitute a new charge?
What does this mean for market practice?
In our Alert issued shortly after the Court of Appeal decision, we offered some interim recommendations pending news of any appeal. The lodging of the special leave application means that the key issues which arose out of the first instance decision remain “in play”. Although the Court of Appeal decision represents the current state of the law and in our respectful view, is correct and likely to be upheld, we cannot dismiss the possibility that the High Court might adopt some or all of McMurdo J's reasoning in the first instance decision, or even adopt a new course. So long as an appeal is pending, the law cannot be regarded as finally settled.
While the Court of Appeal decision did not quash or reverse every element of the reasoning at first instance, it at least meant that the position regarding transactions within the facts of the Octaviar case was restored to what the market understood it to be before the first instance decision. In other words, where a charge describes the secured liabilities, anything which has the effect of adding a liability which falls within that description (and does not alter that description or the remainder of the charge document) is not a registrable variation. If the charge provides a pre-agreed contractual mechanism for bringing liabilities within that description, an act (including an agreement) which is effected strictly in accordance with that mechanism and does not alter the terms of the charge document, will not constitute a registrable variation, even if it has the effect of increasing the amount secured. For example, on our current analysis of the Court of Appeal's decision, if a charge secures all amounts owed under a specified facility agreement, and the charge includes the usual interpretation clause which provides that references to a document includes that document as amended, it is strongly arguable that an amendment to the facility agreement to increase the facility limit should not be a registrable variation of the charge. Of course, that view must be subject to anything the High Court may have to say.
- Joined
- 6 June 2008
- Posts
- 427
- Reactions
- 0
And now for the next step in this legal saga, again from MSJ Lawyers http://www.mallesons.com/publications/2010/Mar/10271502w.htm
Octaviar - special leave granted by High Court
"As we reported on 16 October, in the ongoing Octaviar matter an application was lodged with the High Court on Thursday 15 October 2009. The application was for special leave to appeal against the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal, which had overturned the unsettling first instance judgment.
That application was heard this morning, and was successful. This means that there will be a full appeal to the High Court, likely to be heard in June 2010."
If the PTQ wins this appeal Fortress Credit Corporation could be relegated to the status of an unsecured creditor just as PIF is and there may be more money to share when the Octaviar distribution finally occurs. Lets hope they win.
Octaviar - special leave granted by High Court
"As we reported on 16 October, in the ongoing Octaviar matter an application was lodged with the High Court on Thursday 15 October 2009. The application was for special leave to appeal against the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal, which had overturned the unsettling first instance judgment.
That application was heard this morning, and was successful. This means that there will be a full appeal to the High Court, likely to be heard in June 2010."
If the PTQ wins this appeal Fortress Credit Corporation could be relegated to the status of an unsecured creditor just as PIF is and there may be more money to share when the Octaviar distribution finally occurs. Lets hope they win.
Anyone want to be M Kings neighbour?
Boyland - For the Love of Horses!
5 acres of rich fertile soil, ideal for livestock, in the heart of the fast growing equine area of Qld. With Wadham Park and Widjara Park either side of this property and backing onto Elysium Polo Fields, this is prime real estate in the equine industry.
There is a 30 y.o. 2 bedroom rendered home which needs major renovating or it’s ideal to live in whilst building your dream home.
Features include a bore recently tested for drinking that supplies the house and property with unlimited water.
A 60m x 40m colourbond shed ideal to convert into stables and a large machinery/feed shed.
There is 3 phase power to the property and a dam.
The owner can no longer cope with the workload of acreage and says it’s time to move on….
Reduced:
$575,000
Seller Wants Out
http://www.aussieproperties.com.au/Sale_Houses/20091029_Pilgrim.htm
The new owner may be able to rent it to M King so he can move out of the shed he is alledgedly living in next door!!!!:arsch:
Seamisty
Boyland - For the Love of Horses!
5 acres of rich fertile soil, ideal for livestock, in the heart of the fast growing equine area of Qld. With Wadham Park and Widjara Park either side of this property and backing onto Elysium Polo Fields, this is prime real estate in the equine industry.
There is a 30 y.o. 2 bedroom rendered home which needs major renovating or it’s ideal to live in whilst building your dream home.
Features include a bore recently tested for drinking that supplies the house and property with unlimited water.
A 60m x 40m colourbond shed ideal to convert into stables and a large machinery/feed shed.
There is 3 phase power to the property and a dam.
The owner can no longer cope with the workload of acreage and says it’s time to move on….
Reduced:
$575,000
Seller Wants Out
http://www.aussieproperties.com.au/Sale_Houses/20091029_Pilgrim.htm
The new owner may be able to rent it to M King so he can move out of the shed he is alledgedly living in next door!!!!:arsch:
Seamisty
The new owner could buy these couple of nags if they are still for sale from Kings wife, Kellie Avison to keep the grass mowed!!
'Alimo' & "Animate' Youngstock
These beautifully bred stallions ( Animo/Lord) are already proving their worth in the showjumping and dressage arena with an 'Alimo' gelding winning the foxhunter series QLD and another placing top ten!Add to that Ben mahers jumping sensation 'Robin Hood W' ( by Animo who is rated 8th most influential jump sire worldwide) 'Alimona' chesnut flaxen mane and tail by 'Animate' 2yrs old Ready to start mature 16.1hh $5k firm.'Almost Eve' bay filly by 'Alimo'out of sensational Tristram tb mare 2yrs $6k firm.Chestnut 3yrs Gelding'Albuquerque' By 'Alimo' out of beautiful Argentinus mare professionally broken spelling $10k neg reasonably priced to sell.
Price POA
Contact Details
Name : Kellie Avison
Phone : 0408068812 Mobile:
Email: k_avison@hotmail.com
Canungra,Queensland
Australia
http://www.globalentriesonline.com/equestrian_show_jumping/view_advertisement/?productId=1021
(I wonder if they should be included in the King asset pool?)
Seamisty
- Joined
- 12 July 2008
- Posts
- 416
- Reactions
- 0
It is easy enough for ASIC to trace their "origins of acquisition".
And have them drug tested.
We don't want any toxic assets; in case ASIC could pour them into PIF's recovery basket.
- Joined
- 6 June 2008
- Posts
- 427
- Reactions
- 0
The Octaviar Liquidator gains court approval to market certain Octaviar assets in the Supreme Court of Victoria Commercial Court at http://www.commercialcourt.com.au/Lists/News/DispForm.aspx?ID=377
Title
Octaviar Investment Holdings No. 2 Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) ACN 108 248 737 [2010] FCA 184
Body
CORPORATIONS – powers of liquidator – entry into agreement pursuant to s 477 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Expires
Link to announcement
Octaviar Investment Holdings No. 2 Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) ACN 108 248 737 [2010] FCA 184
Title
Octaviar Investment Holdings No. 2 Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) ACN 108 248 737 [2010] FCA 184
Body
CORPORATIONS – powers of liquidator – entry into agreement pursuant to s 477 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Expires
Link to announcement
Octaviar Investment Holdings No. 2 Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) ACN 108 248 737 [2010] FCA 184
http://www.smh.com.au/business/turf-wars-over-windsor-turf-farm-20100314-q64p.html
Turf wars over Windsor turf farm SCOTT ROCHFORT
March 15, 2010
Turf wars over Windsor turf farm SCOTT ROCHFORT
March 15, 2010
